6 July 2026

The public consultation phase is over and now we await the new SEND legislation that the King’s Speech confirmed will be coming in the current session of Parliament. Education ministers say they are using the consultation responses they have received to shape the detail of the planned reforms.

Many organisations have published their response to the Government’s SEND proposals, as we have ourselves. Reviewing these, it’s very encouraging to see so much emphasis on the need to protect children and young people’s right to an education that meets their needs.

IPSEA is far from alone in urging policymakers to pause before unpicking the legal framework that prioritises children and young people as individuals and provides a clear route for parents to challenge poor decisions. Our shared goal is to prevent unintended consequences taking root in legislation.

Getting decisions right first time

The children’s charity Coram sets out as clearly as anyone could wish why individualised support is so important, and why it matters for children’s wellbeing to get this right first time:

“Through our casework at Coram Children’s Legal Centre we see that harm can be done by taking a ‘tick-box’ approach to support for children. This might arise when, for example, a school has tried a number of strategies to support a child without having adequately ascertained what that child’s support needs are, leading to the ‘off the shelf’ support offered failing. 

“This in turn causes frustration to rise on all sides, and we frequently advise or represent children with special educational needs at the end of the process in this situation who have been excluded or whose parents see no choice but to remove them from the mainstream education system in order to prevent further escalation of harmful experiences in school. 

“This clearly has the risk of long-term impact, particularly on that child’s mental health, self-esteem, confidence and ability to access their education. Frequently in our casework we see situations like this that could have been avoided if proper, individualised support or specialist school place was provided to the child in the first instance.”

The charity Kids also warns that the proposals risk “weaken[ing] children’s rights to provision and appropriate school placements”.

Allowing challenge when systems go wrong

The British Institute for Human Rights says in its consultation response that it is a fundamental principle that respecting human rights means allowing challenge when systems go wrong:

“We want [the SEND system] to work well, but there needs to be strong safeguards and routes for redress when that doesn’t happen. Unfortunately, many of the proposals in this consultation point towards a reduction in accountability and enforceability across the SEND system.”

Disability Rights UK picks up the same theme, saying that “these reforms weaken accountability in a system that already lacks it”.

The children’s charity Coram is one of many respondents to emphasise how strongly the Government’s proposals will rely on mainstream schools to identify and deliver the support a child needs. Coram says:

“It is important that there is a mechanism by which children and parents can challenge ISPs – including the decision not to give one, and the contents of the plan.”

Like many other respondents, the Disabled Children’s Partnership spells out why the Government’s intention to remove the power of the SEND Tribunal to decide which school or college a child or young person should attend is such a bad idea:

“This risks putting in additional significant delays for a child in getting the right provision for them if decisions are taken back for the local authority only for them to propose another school that may not be suitable. This will by definition result in increased lost learning.”

Coram points out that reducing the Tribunal’s role doesn’t help with making the education system more inclusive:

“By removing access to important legal accountability measures, the reforms remove the genuine ability for children, young people and families to have a say in individual SEND decisions. This is counter to the intent of delivering inclusion.”

Coram also makes the same point that we and others have made, that what is proposed “is likely to push parents to resort to more costly legal accountability like judicial reviews where there is a dispute about provision”. This cannot be what ministers intend when they say they want to make the system less adversarial.

The Law Society picks up the same theme in its response, which focuses firmly – as you would expect – on access to justice and the rule of law. Explaining the likely consequence of a move away from legally enforceable provision set out in EHC plans, the Law Society says:

“Without EHCPs a discrimination claim based on the Equality Act may be the only enforceable legal route for families seeking support in mainstream education. This will be a significant shift from ‘entitlement based’ enforcement (EHCPs) to ‘reactive’ enforcement challenging discrimination after harm occurs.”

As we have said on too many occasions to count, the solution to high Tribunal appeal rates is to address why so many unlawful decisions are being made in the first place. As Coram puts it:

“The appropriate response to the overwhelming success rate of parents at Tribunal is not to take away the means of challenging local or central government, but to make decision making and the provision of support fair, transparent and less open to challenge.”

Addressing power imbalances

One of the things that concerns us most at IPSEA is the way that power imbalances are baked into the system. Parents challenging a public body such as a local authority or school on decisions made about their child do not stand on a level playing field. Even for parents with the greatest socio-economic advantages, it’s unlikely to be a conversation between equals.

This concern is shared by others. The British Institute for Human Rights highlights the problem of making the school complaints process the only way of challenging decisions about individual support plans, as the Government proposes. They note that, while it’s not easy for any family to tell their child’s school that their child isn’t being properly supported, it will be extra-hard for some families:

“Shifting accountability entirely to schools (with complaints processes as the primary remedy) removes the only structural lever available to families with the least advocacy capacity. A school complaints process conducted in English, without translation support or legal backing, is not meaningful accountability for the families most at risk of falling through the gaps.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) agrees, saying that it is “essential that families have the ability to raise concerns without fear that doing so will damage their relationship with the organisations they depend on”.

The LGSCO goes on to say:

“We are concerned that the government’s proposals do not set out any independent external routes for families to escalate complaints about how schools have delivered SEND provision. Whilst the SEND Tribunal can consider complaints about disability discrimination, this will not always be a proportionate or meaningful route of redress for many of the day-to-day issues that might occur with SEN support.”

We entirely agree with the LGSCO’s description of the proposals as “a missed opportunity to bring independent redress into the enhanced role that schools will have, given the shift of responsibility towards schools”.

It’s hard to understand why ministers have once again resisted the recommendation made repeatedly by parliamentarians and others over many years to close a major accountability gap by extending the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to enable it to investigate complaints against schools.

The message has been sent

No-one can say the Government hasn’t been given the message loud and clear. But have ministers heard these voices of experience? And will they adjust their planned reforms?

Everyone knows that the system for supporting children and young people with SEND isn’t working for the children, young people and families who rely on it, and that needs to change. But the legal underpinning needs to be made stronger, not weaker.

The Government could achieve the things it says it wants to achieve – children supported as soon as their needs are identified, in schools that are much more inclusive – under existing SEND law. Our message is that this could happen if policymakers would commit to:

• Strengthening support for children and young people both with and without EHC plans, without diluting their individual, enforceable legal rights.
• Making Individual Support Plans (ISPs) legally binding and enforceable by a parent or young person, with provision set out to meet individual needs.
• Ensuring there is a clear mechanism for children and young people who are not in school or college to secure the provision they need.
• Retaining current rights to appeal against unlawful decisions, with no reduction in the current powers of the SEND Tribunal.
• Extending the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to include complaints about support in schools for children with SEND.

About the author

Catriona is responsible for IPSEA’s work in bringing about change by influencing the development of SEND policy nationally. Her background is in public policy and communications, and she has worked for a number of charities and public sector organisations, as well as in Parliament. In the past she has served as an elected councillor in a London borough, a special school governor and a charity trustee. She has personal experience of having a disabled child. In her spare time, she enjoys walking, reading, going to the theatre and being by the sea.

Explore more of our latest policy blogs here.